This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-08-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that although its decision had become final and executory, the Sixteenth Division of the CA retained jurisdiction over the case to the exclusion of all other divisions, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of the Labor Arbiter in the enforcement of its decision. A case on appeal to the CA, and in which an order of execution has been issued, is considered as still pending, so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit. Thus, the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 58836 had not been terminated, and no other court had jurisdiction to hear and decide questions incidental to the enforcement of the decision of the CA, or its award in favor of petitioner by the Labor Arbiter.[31] The various divisions of the CA are, in a sense, coordinate courts, and a division of the appellate court should not interfere with the enforcement of the decision of the other divisions of the court, otherwise confusion could ensue and might seriously hinder the administration of justice.[32] | |||||
|
2006-08-17 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's contention that the SEC does not have jurisdiction to execute because once decided, the case ceases to be a "pending" case and becomes a "decided" case deserves scant attention. In the first place, we have repeatedly held that a case in which an execution has been issued is considered as still "pending" so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit.[39] Even assuming that a "decided" case pending execution can no longer be considered as "pending," it is settled that the particular words, clauses and phrases in a law should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole.[40] In this case, the word "pending" defines the phrase "cases submitted for final resolution" at the time the law took effect. Simply put, the reckoning point to determine whether a case is retained with the SEC for being a "pending case submitted for final resolution" is R.A. No. 8799's date of effectivity. Otherwise, it would be revolting to the common sense to direct the SEC to resolve said cases within one year from the enactment of the Code. Having retained its jurisdiction over the instant case pursuant to Section 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799, the SEC must be deemed to have the power to execute its subject decision. A long standing doctrine is that the tribunal which rendered the decision or award has a general supervisory control over the process of its execution, and this includes the power to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.[41] | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
|||||
| The decision in HLRB Case No. REM-032196-9152 in effect tried to nullify the judgment in HLRB Case No. REM-102193-5625. This is reprehensible and smacks of either dishonesty or gross ignorance on the part of the lawyers involved. Any controversy in the execution of a judgment should be referred to the tribunal which issued the writ of execution since it has the inherent power to control its own processes to enforce its judgments and orders.[17] Courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction may not interfere with or pass upon each other's orders or processes, except in extreme situations authorized by law.[18] The HLURB arbiters who took cognizance of HLRB Case No. REM-032196-9152 clearly overstepped their authority when they allowed the inclusion of petitioners as co-defendants of Bayfront in a suit that actually sought to determine the liability of real estate developers under PD 957 and PD 1344. | |||||